|
The most impressive part of this photo is how they successfully avoided getting the camera or photographer in the picture.
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
Thought this might be interesting: http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2014/05/02/overbid-madness-glen-park-home-sells-for-605k-over-asking/#23018101=0 SF Gate posted:Listing April 4 for $1.495M, it had sold by April 30–for $2.1M. For those keeping track at home, that’s $605K over asking. Incidentally, the current national median selling price for a home is $198K. That's insane. This gets me to thinking about wages in the Bay Area. Are they really so much higher than the rest of the country that an "average" person can afford to buy a home? Are there decent or even fixer uppers that don't cost several thousand dollars?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
ge.hale posted:Thought this might be interesting: No one buying a home in the bay area is an "average" income earner.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
Most homebuyers in the bay area have two full-time wage-earners and both are making in the region of $100k+. But, you are looking specifically at high-end San Francisco real estate there. Trulia says the median price in SF is $915k, while the median price across the whole bay area in March was $555k, according to this Merc article. In my county (Contra Costa), it's around $400k. And that's for SFHs, people can buy apartments and condos in the bay area for less. So, yes, wages are quite high here... but we still have lots of people who are lower-wage earners, are totally priced out of the residential real estate market, and trying to survive in a tight, expensive rental market. The gentrification these trends drive are a significant source of political conflict particularly in San Francisco right now.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
There was a very good article recently that explains the history and current politics that led to housing prices in SF. It's a good read and has some information about how the Google bus protests started: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
ge.hale posted:Thought this might be interesting: The median household income here in SF is somewhere around $70k. The city does have some homebuyer programs for lower income families, but you have to meet strict rules to qualify and the only homes available in that range are BMR units. The only new BMR units coming on the market are either built via city programs, or are built into new-construction condo complexes that have to meet a certain quota of BMR units. Overbidding is extremely common, even with all-cash offers. My boyfriend and I could afford to buy a home here but the bubble feels a little too real, so we're opting to continue to rent even if it means we're "throwing our money away" 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
So people protest Google because the city and suburbs don't want more housing units built. Makes sense. If you can't increase supply reduce demand by burning tech workers for heat.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
jomiel posted:There was a very good article recently that explains the history and current politics that led to housing prices in SF. It's a good read and has some information about how the Google bus protests started: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ My dad sent me this a week ago. It's a long but extremely absorbing read. Even if you don't live in the Bay Area, and even if you don't agree with this guy's conclusions, it's a really good case study to help to undrerstand why housing markets do what they do, and how a lot of what seems like good decisions at the time can lead to severe unintended consequences down the line. But just to contrast with that: I also think this article highlights why the price of housing in the bay area is not a bubble, in the sense that there are too many market forces supporting high prices and not enough potential future events that could push them down substantially. I could see a severe economic recession depressing prices, but not in the "pop a bubble" way.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:My dad sent me this a week ago. It's a long but extremely absorbing read. Even if you don't live in the Bay Area, and even if you don't agree with this guy's conclusions, it's a really good case study to help to undrerstand why housing markets do what they do, and how a lot of what seems like good decisions at the time can lead to severe unintended consequences down the line. How about a bunch of those tech workers decide they'd rather work remotely and live out in the sticks?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
I don't see any evidence that will happen. First of all, the tech companies will have to allow their workers to work remotely, and from what I've read that trend is going in the opposite direction. Second, tech workers would want to move out to the sticks. I don't see that happening, the main reason why tech companies congregate in certain areas is that their most skilled workers live there and don't want to relocate. There are hundreds of cities that will do whatever it takes to attract the jobs and prestige that a big tech company will bring, but the companies simply can't attract the top talent they need unless they are located where that talent wants to live.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Never underestimate the "BUT IF I CAN'T SEE YOU HOW WILL I KNOW YOU'RE WORKING?!" even with cutting-edge companies. In "never buy a condo" news, there is apparently a simmering conflict between the second and third floors of my building because someone is slamming doors or something. The passive-aggressive notes are flying.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 06:49
|
|
|
fruition posted:Any tips for getting the smell of smoke out of our house? The previous owner was, among other things, a chain-smoker and no matter what we do the smell still lingers. I bought my home from a heavy heavy smoker and here's what I did: 1. Rip out everything that is absorbent or circulated air. All carpet, carpet padding, curtains, air filters, etc. Replace fridge. 2. Remove the popcorn ceiling. 3. Have the air ducts cleaned and the HVAC serviced. 4. Scrub down all surfaces (floor, ceiling, walls, cabinets) with TSP-based cleaning products. Goo-gone on cabinetry to make sure the tar is gone. 5. Unscented febreze-coat every surface. 6. Retexture ceilings. 7. Prime paintable surfaces with Kilz. 8. Re-paint ceiling and walls. 9. New carpet pad and carpeting. I'm allergic to smoke and that worked for me. But when I say everything in my house was replaced or scrubbed, I mean everything. If I had to guess I'd suspect the carpet pads/carpet. I did my absolute best to deodorize the carpet that was here and nothing worked including steam cleaning, but once both the carpet and pad were replaced it was fine. I don't have hardwood floors, so I don't know if they will respond to TSP/Goo Gone or if you just can't get cleaning products in between all the boards. Good luck.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:How about a bunch of those tech workers decide they'd rather work remotely and live out in the sticks? Konstantin posted:I don't see any evidence that will happen. First of all, the tech companies will have to allow their workers to work remotely, and from what I've read that trend is going in the opposite direction. Second, tech workers would want to move out to the sticks. I don't see that happening, the main reason why tech companies congregate in certain areas is that their most skilled workers live there and don't want to relocate. There are hundreds of cities that will do whatever it takes to attract the jobs and prestige that a big tech company will bring, but the companies simply can't attract the top talent they need unless they are located where that talent wants to live. In addition to what Konstantin said, there's another issue. While a tech worker may currently work for a company that allows significant telecommuting (as I do, presently), the average tech worker only stays with a tech job in the valley for maybe three or four years, and there's no guarantee that the next company is going to allow it. So tech worker buyers need to live near enough to the major employment centers to be able to commute, if their next big job is someplace they'll have to physically go in to. But perhaps more importantly, despite the reputation of the Bay Area as being packed full of tech workers, they actually only make up something like 15% of full-time employment. They're a significant sector because of the high wages, for sure, but if we lost 20% of tech workers from them moving away in the space of, say, five years, that might push down the prices of houses in the 500k+ realm by some measurable factor, but it would not crash the real estate market. The Bay Area's economy is surprisingly well diversified. In the 2000 dotcom crash, which led to a national recession, house prices stagnated for a couple of years but didn't really go down much, and they recovered very quickly.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 09:06
|
|
|
Yeah, housing in the Bay Area is unlikely to ever be affordable to people who earn less than 100k and don't have a working partner. You could probably buy in West Oakland, the far east bay (only lovely areas in Crockett, Rodeo, and Antioch, mind you) or the far south like Salinas/Gilroy. Anything near SF is out of the picture. I'm a social worker in Contra Costa, I am going to rent forever  I am giving serious thought to living in a dangerous part of West Oakland just to own a house and because I know in my heart of hearts that eventually all areas will be claimed by "progress" and I will be benefiting from the displacement of my clientele. At least there is a BART station, I guess. And less prostitutes and shootings than when I was a kid.Edit: http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/820-Apgar-St-Oakland-CA-94608/24748536_zpid/ Yep, this is in my price range 
Mocking Bird fucked around with this message at 16:59 on May 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Trilineatus posted:Yeah, housing in the Bay Area is unlikely to ever be affordable to people who earn less than 100k and don't have a working partner. You could probably buy in West Oakland, the far east bay (only lovely areas in Crockett, Rodeo, and Antioch, mind you) or the far south like Salinas/Gilroy. Anything near SF is out of the picture. I've always just assumed that the average incomes in some of these areas were in the $2-300k+ range. I make about $120k a year and wouldn't even feel remotely comfortable buying something that expensive, even if it wasn't falling apart. How the hell do people do it? One of the many great things about living in flyover country is that I can keep my budget way lower than it needs to be and still get way more house than I need. There are a lot of other places I wouldn't mind living, but the cost to do so is just insane.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Best part: that was the cheapest SFH listing I could find in 5 zip codes. Average for even gang territory was half a million.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Trilineatus posted:Best part: that was the cheapest SFH listing I could find in 5 zip codes. Average for even gang territory was half a million. I'm in Concord and we have BART and you can buy a house for $300k here in a not-murdery neighborhood. fknlo posted:I've always just assumed that the average incomes in some of these areas were in the $2-300k+ range. I make about $120k a year and wouldn't even feel remotely comfortable buying something that expensive, even if it wasn't falling apart. How the hell do people do it? That whole "1/3 your after-tax income goes to housing" thing is a hilarious joke around here. Putting 50% of your gross paycheck into your mortgage payment is considered normal, and plenty of people do more than that.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Trilineatus posted:http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/820-Apgar-St-Oakland-CA-94608/24748536_zpid/ SEPT 30 1997 Previous sale $70,000 This home last sold for $70,000. SEPT 25 2006 Loan issued A loan was issued on 09/25/06. MAR 21 2014 Foreclosure auction The owner of this property has been served a Notice of Sale. Home in default Public records indicate the owner of this property is in pre-foreclosure.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I'm in Concord and we have BART and you can buy a house for $300k here in a not-murdery neighborhood Yeah but that's Concord I kid, I kid - Concord is a perfectly nice suburb, but not quite the hub that the near east bay is  I am very attached to Berkeley and North Oakland, and I was just derailing the thread to wax sad about the state of housing.And that house does have a sad story, which can be seen on my mom's old home and hundreds of other homes as well. It does offer a chance to bid on foreclosures and fix them up, which may be a way to break into a very expensive market. Mocking Bird fucked around with this message at 04:00 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I'm in Concord and we have BART and you can buy a house for $300k here in a not-murdery neighborhood.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
moana posted:The notes in the description about sale history tells a stupidly sad story. Bought for $70k, and the owners took out another loan at the height of the housing bubble, only to be foreclosed on for not meeting their (likely quadrupled) mortgage payments. Depressing. I always loved my house's history  Bought at the near top of bubble, extracted another $212k equity in god knows what ever loan schemes they gave him, tried to sell at a loss and eventually got foreclosed on. He also trashed the place and the banks put in 40k to make it sellable so I could scoop it up at around the bottom of the latest price swing.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
Dr. Kyle Farnsworth posted:In "never buy a condo" news Just curious: is that a serious thing or just a piece of advice with respect to crappy HOAs or building mgmt? We're looking at both condos and single-family homes with no real preference so far.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Trabant posted:Just curious: is that a serious thing or just a piece of advice with respect to crappy HOAs or building mgmt? We're looking at both condos and single-family homes with no real preference so far. Many of us consider buying a condo to combine all the disadvantages of renting an apartment with all the disadvantages of home ownership. You will have a condo association, which are notorious for making dumb rules, mismanaging money, and being awful to deal with: you'll have neighbors with adjoining walls that stomp around and make noise at night; you'll have less freedom to modify your home than if you had a SFH, and you'll have all the worries of fluctuating home prices except amplified, because condo prices tend to be more volatile. Also you don't own your own land, and land ownership is a significant part of what gives generationally-enduring value to real estate; the building on the land is a depreciating asset that requires expensive maintenance. That said: there are people for whom a condo can be the right choice. If you live where it's literally the only option to own that you can afford, and ownership is right for you, then maybe OK. If you enjoy listening to your neighbors have sex or scream at their children, have no interest in picking what color to paint your house or building a nice deck out the back, prefer someone else not only do your yardwork but make the arrangements for who will do your yardwork (since anyone with a SFH can hire a gardening service), and are OK with not having a fixed housing cost (because association fees can and do go up at any time, sometimes by a lot if there's a shortfall and an expensive thing needs to be paid for), then maybe a condo is right for you. If you have never lived in a condo, rent one before buying because you don't want to be one year into your mortgage and find out you hate it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
What is even the point of buying a condo/buying an apartment? Like what advantages are there to that rather than renting an apartment?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Speculation that the price will go up and you'll profit on it? Perhaps the opportunity to live at a very specific development that has a minimum ownership level so all that's available are units for sale?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Many of us consider buying a condo to combine all the disadvantages of renting an apartment with all the disadvantages of home ownership. You will have a condo association, which are notorious for making dumb rules, mismanaging money, and being awful to deal with: you'll have neighbors with adjoining walls that stomp around and make noise at night; you'll have less freedom to modify your home than if you had a SFH, and you'll have all the worries of fluctuating home prices except amplified, because condo prices tend to be more volatile. Also you don't own your own land, and land ownership is a significant part of what gives generationally-enduring value to real estate; the building on the land is a depreciating asset that requires expensive maintenance. Well then  Having lived in a condo (north of NYC) and now in a SFH (north of Austin), I felt like I had a good handle on the pros/cons of each. I was actually allowed to modify my condo a fair amount (paint, knock down walls, install cabinetry etc) and as someone who would gladly pave over his lawn in favour of a basketball court, I didn't miss having a patch of grass of my own. So I can't say I've a bad experience, but maybe I got lucky. Or maybe you had rotten luck? Sockser posted:What is even the point of buying a condo/buying an apartment? Like what advantages are there to that rather than renting an apartment? In our case it's almost entirely an issue of a downtown location. There are single-family homes available as well, which is why we're considering both. The problem is that the vast majority of houses in the area of interest are out of my price range (sometimes by a factor of 2x or 3x) or old enough to almost certainly require a massive amount of upkeep. The condos have a good location and are somehow more affordable, even with the monthly fees. At least some of the monthly fees. Others are just outrageous.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Trabant posted:In our case it's almost entirely an issue of a downtown location. There are single-family homes available as well, which is why we're considering both. The problem is that the vast majority of houses in the area of interest are out of my price range (sometimes by a factor of 2x or 3x) or old enough to almost certainly require a massive amount of upkeep. The condos have a good location and are somehow more affordable, even with the monthly fees. At least some of the monthly fees. Others are just outrageous. Downtown areas of a major city are the only places where I would say a condo make sense. If want to buy a condo in somewhere like the suburbs of Milwaukee or Phoenix, you're insane.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
I definitely agree with that. I bought a condo in central Austin myself last year. I think condo purchases can make a lot of sense when you're in an area where SFHs are a lot more expensive and you're in an area where there is a very high demand to live there without a lot of supply. A property of similar size/quality/location to mine would cost about $500 more a month to rent over what I'm paying to own (without including the tax breaks I'll get). I know my property taxes are going to go up and HOA dues will most likely go up with time, but at least my P&I is fixed while rent in this city is going up dramatically every year. There is the opportunity cost for my downpayment which could have been invested instead of put into something non liquid (my condo), but I am getting any appreciation on my property instead. I live just a little over a mile from central downtown in an area with hardly any land available to built on so it is a better bet that property values will keep increasing here (or at least not start decreasing anytime soon) over places out in the outskirts of the city / suburbs. I could have gone with a SFH, but it would have been a lot more expensive and the condo lifestyle suits me more at this point in my life anyway. If I was going to live somewhere around here besides central Austin, I would definitely go with a SFH.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
It seems to be kind of the opposite here in Kansas City. Condos tend to cost quite a bit more than houses of a similar or larger size. I'd be looking at condos as well as houses, but I just have too much poo poo that doesn't quite work in condos. Like a 12.5ft long kayak. I got lucky in that I can barely get it into one of the storage units in the basement of my building. None of the condos downtown that I looked at would have really worked. edit: Was hoping some houses would hit the market this weekend since the local art fair was going on in the main area I'm looking and it brings quite a few people to the neighborhood. One new house. The only one in more than a week. I even looked at about $50k over my budget and that added a total of 2 more. fknlo fucked around with this message at 01:05 on May 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
Boola posted:I definitely agree with that. I bought a condo in central Austin myself last year. I'd really appreciate any advice you can offer based on your experience. We've only dipped our feet so far but it's clear we're going to be dealing with complete madness.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Trabant posted:Just curious: is that a serious thing or just a piece of advice with respect to crappy HOAs or building mgmt? We're looking at both condos and single-family homes with no real preference so far. If you are in a high price urban area like SF, London, or NYC, I would recommend probably becoming a millionaire a time or two over before considering buying anything there. I say this partly because to be able to have the stability of income and such to be able to afford even buying in such a high price place, you'd probably have to have succeeded quite well in your field to make settling in the area a sensible decision you wouldn't regret several times over. I don't really recommend settling in a high price area as a life choice if the best job you can get after years or decades of struggling is a middle manager at a random restaurant while you're still juggling 3-4 part time jobs, there's hardly anything trending upward for you, nothing to do with your abilities or anything probably even. Because this situation is becoming so common homebuying rates wouldn't happen for young adults even if they were making similar in proportion to what their parents' generation did (granted, a lot of them would be children of Gen Xers, yeesh). Caveat: I'm the guy that wrote the HOA warnings in the OP of the thread. Sockser posted:What is even the point of buying a condo/buying an apartment? Like what advantages are there to that rather than renting an apartment? Almost none of these criteria apply for people that are looking for information in this thread. But for some intangibles asides from the usual concerns with a house (location, price, and amenities), you can normally change out a lot of stuff in a condo still while you probably can't with an apartment. Anything WITHIN the walls tends to be of little concern to an HOA - it's just the question of what's shared that drives people insane. Some HOAs are pretty stable and have solid management, and they will likely be vetting YOU a lot because they understand the risks of shithead owners poisoning an HOA by that point. My recommendation if you do want to buy a condo is to make sure the place was actually constructed to be condos and that the walls and floors are thick enough to be actually soundproof to some degree. High rises by design have to have floors that thick, but the worst culprits of cheaply profiting from real estate are apartment conversions that are about 2-4 stories high.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
Trabant posted:I'd really appreciate any advice you can offer based on your experience. We've only dipped our feet so far but it's clear we're going to be dealing with complete madness. I bought my place in a complex that was pre construction and had plenty of units available to reserve at the time so I only saw a little of the madness of the housing market here before reserving my unit. The Denizen is the name of the development I'm at if you're interested in looking it up. They have only a few units left (that won't be move in ready for awhile) and the prices have gone up a lot from when I reserved my place; but it is a very nice development. From what I saw, you'll need everything financially in order and have your pre-approval on hand so you can move quick on any properties coming on the market that fit your needs. Have a realtor that knows the area you're looking in well, has connections, and is up for looking at a place with you on short notice whenever it hits the market. From what I saw, desirable properties don't often make it to a zillow or redfin before being under contract already because they're getting offers within a couple days of being on MLS. I liked my realtor a lot and can give you his information if you're looking for one.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:20
|
|
|
Boola posted:desirable properties don't often make it to a zillow or redfin before being under contract already because they're getting offers within a couple days of being on MLS. Redfin is a brokerage. They have MLS access. Listings will appear on Redfin at most 20 minutes after appearing in the MLS We will even send you an email for each new listing that meets your criteria, if you want.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
I was wrong on redfin, then. Good to know - I should have used you guys. My realtor was just forwarding me everything in the area I was looking in as soon as it hit MLS, but it would have been good to have that myself. Zillow was horrible. Me: "I'm interested in this property that just showed up, says it was listed today, and is available" Agent: "Under contract as of 2 days ago"
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice, Boola. Also, Austin apparently has this underground market where sellers don't even list on MLS and entire transactions can happen without properties ever really being on the open market. According to one realtor, almost half of the properties sold went through word-of-mouth and informal networks. I don't know if that's a recent development, but it certainly wasn't something I had to deal with when I was buying in '06. Granted, that was a house in the suburbs, so who knows.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
Trabant posted:Thanks for the advice, Boola. For sale by owner, aka FSBO. We live in a strange time where the internet exists, but residential real estate agents still exist. Economists have been predicting for years that realtors will go the way of travel agents, but they've somehow held on. Having bought a house once with a realtor, I'm certain that I know enough about the process to have my next transaction be FSBO with help of a real estate lawyer. Think about it this way: Let's say I'm selling a home for $200k with a realtor. I'm going to be paying out 3% each to both buyer and seller's agent. Setting aside closing costs and everything else, I'm walking away with $188k. Let's do the same transaction without realtors. At this point, I'm indifferent between selling for $188k FSBO or selling for $200k with realtors on both sides. If I sell FSBO at any sale price between $188k and $200k, a FSBO transaction will be better for both parties than a realtor-involved transaction at $200k. As a seller, do I really believe that having a realtor on both sides of that transaction will get me an extra 6.3% in sales price beyond what I can do on my own?  at that.If I'm a buyer, I don't care how much the seller is taking away from the transaction. Having realtors on both sides of the transaction applying pressure for the seller to close quickly and not hold out for a higher price works in my favor. However, using a realtor as a buyer makes your offers less competitive to the FSBO seller: your offer must be higher than the next-best non-realtor offer by enough to offset the seller paying your realtor's commission. I was really happy with my realtor when I was a buyer, but I'm pretty sure I can do everything she did at least as competently when I'm a seller.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
fknlo posted:It seems to be kind of the opposite here in Kansas City. Condos tend to cost quite a bit more than houses of a similar or larger size. I'd be looking at condos as well as houses, but I just have too much poo poo that doesn't quite work in condos. Like a 12.5ft long kayak. I got lucky in that I can barely get it into one of the storage units in the basement of my building. None of the condos downtown that I looked at would have really worked. Was thinking about you when I saw the "for Sale" sign go up on a house across the way. We actually toured this house back in early 2012 and was considering buying it but thought it was valued too high at 240k. poo poo man, they've done a lot of work to it but 160k more is ridiculous. I was hoping to get a cool neighbor in there to drink beer with.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
canyoneer posted:For sale by owner, aka FSBO.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:That whole "1/3 your after-tax income goes to housing" thing is a hilarious joke around here. Putting 50% of your gross paycheck into your mortgage payment is considered normal, and plenty of people do more than that. It's incredibly common for people to dump any semblance of "saving" money into their home. For a MASSIVE number of people in the Bay Area, their home represents their entire nest egg. But even then, the numbers don't make sense. For my county, Santa Clara county (contains San Jose, Cupertino, Mountain View, others): Median household income, 2008-2012 $90,747 Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2008-2012 $656,600 Yep! That's a >7x multiplier between household income and home value! (The nationwide value is 3.4x) So back to the original point, yes, people make more money, but not *that* much more money. I'm a transplanted Texan and I don't understand how or why people buy homes here.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
"Median household income" includes everyone who rents. I bet the numbers don't match up right if you compare those two statistics anywhere that has significant rental populations. That said, I'm sure if you compared "Median household income of homeowners" with "median value" it still won't make a ton of sense, because a lot of home owners bought their houses for less than the current median value. In California, Prop 13 actually reduces housing liquidity because it heavily incentivizes homeowners not to sell, even if they're thinking of "trading up" to a bigger home, because their tax bill is likely to jump disproportionately. So if you really wanted a useful number you'd need "median household income of people buying houses this month" vs. "median sales price of houses for sale this month."
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2014 19:12
|
|